Talk:Politicization of science

There should maybe be an additional article on the political manipulation of religion (or politicization of religion) ; nowadays, most people realize that science is the object of serious manipulations, but before science acquired a vast social influence in the West, religion was subject to the same kind of political and ideological manipulations. It could therefore be argued that science has replaced religion in this role, which is still a difficult burden to bear. And although religion continues to be manipulated by political forces, much of its former political role has been substantially reduced by Church-State separation, which many argue to have been ultimately beneficial to the Church. Certain philosophers of science, such as Paul Feyerabend, have consequently argued in favour of a separation of Science and State which would provide the same type of societal benefits to the scientific community. ADM (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

The politics/religion stuff is off-topic here. I don't really see a "separation of Science and State" as practicable -- as (i) the state tends to have the deepest pockets & the longest view, so is always the most likely candidate for funding pure science, (ii) it is the main funder of military and space exploration -- two significant funders of scientific advancement & (iii) often needs scientific research to base its decision-making upon. But regardless, before we should include Feyerabend, we would first need a WP:RS & second some indication of prominence of his viewpoint (per WP:DUE). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is a recent article in the USA Today that uses the expression Separation of Science and State. [1] I find it curious that the article made use of the term only a short time after I made the above comment. ADM (talk) 05:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

The "separation" that USA-Today is discussing is not analogous to 'separation of church and state', appearing more concerned at making sure that scientific input into political decision-making is not tampered with by political interests. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't some aspects of Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis be included in this article? The controversy is entirely political so it seems appropriate for this article. Thoughts before I write something up? Seelum (talk) 17:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'd certainly think a WP:SUMMARY, concentrating on the political aspect, belongs here. Go for it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I'll see what I can do over the next day or so. Thanks. Seelum (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Added. I'm new to this so someone take a look at it and edit as necessary. Seelum (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

This article is only scratching the surface of the material it should cover. --John (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Sure is, nothing on race?! Christopedia (talk) 05:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Agree with the latter. Starting with Galileo, science often has been manipulated for political reasons by partisans of many and various political, economic, religious, religious, cultural, and other interests. Several other, more contemporary examples worth noting include:

1. Eugenics movement of the early 20th Century.

1. Denial of HIV cause of AIDS by South African President Mbeki.

1. Belgium ban of Coke products 1999, later attributed to ‘mass hysteria’.

1. Japan ban of US beef, 2006.

1. Recall of US tomatoes in 2008 for supposed salmonella contamination; ultimately linked to Mexican chili peppers.

1. Trade protectionism by wholesale bans of "Genetically Modified Organisms."

1. Silicone breast implant fears, unsupported by scientific findings.

1. Political backlash to 2009 US screening task force guidelines on mammograms.

1. Claims that cell phones, power lines, other electrical devices cause cancer, despite repeated scientific findings to the contrary.

1. Persistent fluoridation conspiracy theories, spanning political spectra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanbrain (talk • contribs) 01:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I do not believe that political talking points by liberal politicians (Rep. Brad Miller in the DailyKos reference #48) are especially useful in factual articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winklebean (talk • contribs) 14:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Are you suggesting that facts are politically liberal and hence should be confined to articles about politics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.198.133 (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

It seems that the link to the Waxman Report in references at the bottom is now broken. You are redirected to a video of Congressman Issa. Is this a political act? It could have been redirected to a critique of the report. But to redirect to a video of Congressman Issa is perhaps adversarial. I can't find a good link for the Waxman report. Does anyone have one? --Carl94965 (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I assume you mean the first entry in the External Links section. When I clicked it, it was just a dead link (no redirect for me), and I found some other dead links by clicking randomly on the references. I looked over the recent edit history, and I don't see any recent evidence of anyone intentionally changing the links from Democrat to Republican. I don't have time at the moment, but someone will have to go through and check these. In the mean time, perhaps a Google search will turn up the report you are looking for. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Contrary to Eworrall's claims:

• This section bears little resemblance to Eugenics#Germany
• Eugenics makes no mention of Coldsprings Harbor Laboratory
• Eugenics makes no connection between "Winston Churchill and Alexander Graham Bell" and Nazi Eugenics.

This section quite simply appears to be a badly mangled piece of WP:OR. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I would further point out that the Eugenics article itself is rather sporadically sourced, making the claim that "reference was provided to the main Eugenics article, which contains sources" even more flimsy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

The replacement 'Eugenics' section, although better sourced, does little to establish eugenics as an example of 'politicization of science'. It rather seems to be a grabbag of random facts about eugenics. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 11:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

More specifically, the material introduced fails to inform as to how politics manipulated science in this case. With eugenics, it seems to be a case of rather poorly-conceived scientific efforts converging with pre-existing social prejudices, rather than either 'manipulating' the other. Thus, this is a poor example, poorly explained. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Response - 'Eugenics' section

Thankyou for your feedback Hrafn^Talk. Let me know what you think of the revised section. Regarding your concern about relevance, there is no doubt Hitler and others substantially manipulated scientific research to conform with their idealogical views on Eugenics - I have improved the description of that manipulation, and included an additional reference. I agree that Eugenics was a convergence of poor science and social prejudice, but this is the case with other examples on the Politicization of science page - if the science was good, then it wouldn't qualify as politically manipulated science, and the manipulation is almost always for political gain, to bolster support for a viewpoint or prejudice. eworrall^Talk

The Hitler/Nazi manipulation claim is poorly cited, failing to state where in a 480 page book the claim is made. None of the rest of your material establishes any connection whatsoever between eugenics and political manipulation. That you are sure that such a connection exists is not sufficient -- "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

And no, I do not accept your extremely vague contention that "a convergence of poor science and social prejudice ... is the case with other examples on the Politicization of science page". The other examples all appear to exhibit overt interference. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

This article as currently written seems to single out a certain president whose name appears fourteen times. That seems a little excessive and potentially politically motivated. Nevertheless, such a narrow focus of criticism limits the quality of this article, one that should have a NPOV. I would like to see some more diverse recent examples, especially ones that represent more international subjects. (Wikipedia isn't American-only.) Soyseñorsnibbles^Dígame 18:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

While the role politics plays in science is undoubtedly a subject worthy of a detailed article on Wikipedia, this article in its present form is too much like a soapbox for editors to list accusations against various beliefs or politicians. The writing does not come off like an encyclopedic article discussing the storied history of the relationship between science and politics. In fact, it seems overly biased in this respect by referring to "politicization of science" as though science is not almost always intertwined with politics. A rename may be in order there. Much of the material is even bordering on WP:BLP violation territory by focusing heavily on inflammatory accusations against former President George W. Bush. Adding more info about historical cases in the relationship between science and politics, and focusing on some of the non-fringe instances where science plays a role in politics. For instance, while the section on global warming notes that the mainstream scientific view is claimed to be used for political gain, it appears to focus on global warming skeptics.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

This article focuses on pressure by politicians to alter or otherwise affect the reporting of science by scientists for political purposes. It completely neglects instances where scientists have done or have been accused of doing the same for political purposes. Environmental science is an area that is anecdotally notorious for such practices. Certainly there are verifiable instances of such practices in many fields and this seems like the most appropriate article for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.73.120.111 (talk) 04:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Can you provide some reliable sources for this claim? - SummerPhD (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Look up Kinsey's pedophiles. Seems like politicization of science by a scientist.

Should the issues surrounding scientific research into marijuana and the misleading studies inflating dangers of second hand smoke also get mention in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.128.220.10 (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Reply